[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 09:26:06 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: add loongarch64 port
On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 12:30:59PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 3:31 PM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, if there aren't yet archs lacking SYS_clone, this API
> > regression may be a good argument not to drop SYS_clone on new archs
> > yet until there's a way for new archs to get the same behavior
> > (unspecified stack size).
>
> That is a good point, but it also appears that the behavior of
> clone3() is unintentional
> here, I'm fairly sure it was meant to be a drop-in replacement for clone() with
> additional features.
Mostly but not in all ways. We did decide it's ok to make API
improvements that might break compatibility with legacy clone().
>
> Not sure what the best fix for this is, as the check for size==0 was clearly
> intentional, but seems to prevent this from working. A special flag to ignore
> the size, or a magic size value like -1ull might work, but neither of them
> is a great interface.
Can someone explain the use-case in a bit more detail, please?
If it is a legitimate use-case that callers need to be able to pass a
stack and have no way of also passing a size then we should just remove
the size == 0 check for all architectures that don't have a hard
requirement on passing a size together with the stack pointer.
Wdyt, Arnd?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
